AUSTIN -- A University of Texas professor says the
Earth would be better off with 90 percent of the human population dead.

"Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine," Eric
Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward's University on Friday.
Pianka's words are part of what he calls his "doomsday talk" -
a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity's ecological misdeeds and Pianka's
predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate
all but a fraction of civilization.

Though his statements are admittedly bold, he's not without abundant advocates.
But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers
is this: Humanity's collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he
smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message
many would call morbid, Pianka's warnings are centered upon awareness rather
than fear.

"This is really an exciting time," he said Friday amid warnings
of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared,
"Death. This is what awaits us all. Death." Reflecting on the
so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, "May you live in interesting times,"
he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

So what's at the heart of Pianka's claim?

6.5 billion humans is too many.

In his estimation, "We've grown fat, apathetic and miserable,"
all the while leaving the planet parched.

"This guy is a loose cannon to believe that worldwide genocide is the
only answer," said Mims, who filed two formal petitions with the academy
following the meeting.

Joining the crusade, James Pitts, who recieved a Ph.D. in physics from UT-Austin,
became the second to publicly chastise Pianka when he filed a complaint
Saturday with the UT board of regents. He insists a state university is
no place to disseminate such views.

He writes:

"Pianka's message does not fall within the realm of his professional
competence as a biologist, because it is a normative claim, not a descriptive
one. Pianka is encouraged to use his ecological expertise to predict the
likely consequences of certain technological and reproductive strategies,
but to evaluate some as good, bad, or worthy of prevention by genocide is
the realm of philosophy or political science, not science. His message falls
no more within his professional competence than it would for a physicist
to teach religion in class or a musician to encourage racism.Â"

But Pianka, a 38-year UT educator, maintains he's not campaigning for genocide.
He likens mankind's story to an unbridled party on a luxury cruise liner.
The fun's going strong on the upper deck, he says. But as crowds blindly
absorb the festivities, many fail to notice the ship is sinking.

"The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism," he said, describing
the belief system in which humans are the central element of the universe.
"This is that common attitude that everything on this Earth was put
here for [human] use."

To Pianka, a human life is no more valuable than any other - a lizard, a
bison, a rhino. And as humans reproduce, the demand for resources like food,
water and energy becomes more than the Earth can sustain, he says.

Ken Wilkins, a Baylor University biology professor and associate dean, agrees
the inevitability of a crashing point is unarguable.

"The human population is growing," he said. "We will see
a point when we reach the carrying capacity - there aren't enough resources."

But resources aren't the only threat, Pianka says. It's the Ebola virus
he deems most capable of wide scale decimation.

"Humans are so dense (in population) that they constitute a perfect
substrate for an epidemic," he says.

He contends Ebola is merely an evolutionary step away from escaping the
confines of Africa. And should an outbreak occur, Pianka assuredly says
humanity will quickly come to a "grinding halt."

The professor's not the only one who can articulate this concept. Because
Pianka includes his doomsday material in his coursework, Ebola and its potential
play a notable role in some students' studies. A syllabus for one course
reads:

"Although [Ebola Zaire] Kills 9 out of 10 people, outbreaks have so
far been unable to become epidemics because they are currently spread only
by direct physical contact with infected blood. However, a closely-related
virus that kills monkeys, Ebola Reston, is airborne, and it is only a matter
of time until Ebola Zaire evolves the capacity to be airborne."

It is here that some say Pianka ventures from provocative food for thought
to, as Wilkins said, "very extreme material" that violate many
people's views - including his own - about the treatment of human life.
While many praise Pianka's boldness and scientific know-how, others say
he crosses an ethical line in his treatment of Ebola's viability as a killer.

In an evaluation of Pianka's course - performed anonymously in keeping with
university policy - one student offered:

"Though I agree that conservation biology is of utmost importance to
the world, I do not think that preaching that 90 percent of the human population
should die of Ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation
awareness."

Mims worries fertile young minds with a thirst for knowledge may develop
into enthusiastic supporters of a deadly disease, advocating the fall of
humanity.

"He recommended airborne Ebola as an ideal killing virus," Mims
said. "He showed slides of the Four Horsemen of the apocalypse and
human skulls. He joked about requiring universal sterilization. It reminded
me of a futuristic science fiction movie with a crazed scientist planning
the death of humanity."

But as confident as Mims is in his assessment, he faces one unarguable fact:
Most of Pianka's former students are bursting with praise. Their in-class
evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like "the most incredible
class I ever had" and "Pianka is a GOD!"

Mims counters their ovation with the story of a Texas Lutheran University
student who attended the Academy of Science lecture. Brenna McConnell, a
biology senior, said she and others in the audience "had not thought
seriously about overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the
meeting." But though McConnell arrived at the event with little to
say on the issue, she returned to Seguin with a whole new outlook.

An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what's become
a new conviction:

"[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one!" she wrote. "I
mean, he's basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of
the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think
he's right."

Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she's decided
Ebola isn't the answer, she's still considering other deadly viruses that
might take its place in the equation.

"Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because it's the easiest
answer to this problem of overpopulation," she said.

Though listeners like McConnell may walk away with a deadly message, Pianka
maintains this is inconsistent with his lecture. One UT official said Pianka
is likely well within his rights as a tenured educator.

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure - a set
of guidelines recognized nationwide - guarantees college professors vast
classroom liberties. But Neal Armstrong, vice provost for faculty affairs
at UT, said even this freedom is not without limits.

"Faculty members have the right of free speech like anyone else,"
he said. "In the classroom, they're free to express their views. There
is the expectation, though, that in public - especially when speaking on
controversial topics - they must make every effort to be clear that they
are not speaking on behalf of the university."

Students should be able to discern on their own the validity of views like
Pianka's, Armstrong said. But if allegations of Pianka actively advocating
human death were to be confirmed, he said "there might be some discussion
about the appropriateness of that subject."

Robert K. Jansen, chair of the section of integrated biology under which
Pianka is classified, said his understanding of the doomsday material left
no cause for concern.

"It's important for students to get all opinions, and they have to
do that on a daily basis," he said. To hold a classroom's attention,
Jansen says educators must often "speak their mind" in a fashion
bold enough to garner a bit of shock.

The Texas Academy of Science uses a similar approach in defending its decision
to honor Pianka with the Distinguished Scientist award. Though TAS offered
no direct comment to the Gazette-Enterprise, an email sent from TAS President
David Marsh to Mims in response to Mims first letter of protest reads:

"We select the DTS speaker based on his/her academic credentials and
contributions to science. We do not mandate the subject he/she decides to
address, nor will we ever. I would suggest that one of the purposes of any
such presentation is to stimulate discussion - which indeed it did."

In his petitions, Mims inquires about the group's stance on Pianka's talk,
asking if the recent honor should be interpreted as an endorsement by TAS.
Marsh responded firmly, saying the award does not represent any formal backing
of Pianka's ideas.

But despite the academy's flat denial of any wrongdoing, Mims maintains
his stance. He said thus far, he's seen no response to the second petition.

"I completely agree with one assertion made several times by Dr. Pianka:
'The public is not ready to hear that he hopes 90 percent of them will be
exterminated by disease,'" Mims said.

McConnell said the TAS audience, unlike Mims, was in awe of PiankaÂ's
words. They offered a standing ovation, and enthusiastically applauded Pianka's
position, Mims said.

"There was a good deal of shock and just plain astonishment at what
he had to say," the student said. "Not many folk come out and
talk about the end of the human population in as candid of a manner as he
did. Dr. Pianka received a standing ovation at the end of his talk, if that
says anything. What he had to say was radical, no question about it, but
that is not to say that at least some of what he had to say is not true."

Though Pianka turned down requests for a sit-down interview, he maintains
he is not advocating human death.

Does he believe nature will bring about this promised devastation? Or is
humanity's own dissemination of a deadly virus the only answer? And more
importantly, is this the motive behind his talks?

Responding to these very questions, Pianka said, "Good terrorists would
be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they
could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people."

As of press time, Pitts - who sent his appeal via email Saturday - had received
no response from the university, but he says, "It's too early for any
responses to have been made." Meanwhile, Pianka urges humanity to heed
his call to be prepared, saying "we're going to be hunters and gatherers
again real soon."

Due to the overwhelming popularity of
our $39.95 yearly special, we are bringing it back for Spring! This is your
chance to receive over 5 months of access completely free compared to the
standard price. Click
here to subscribe!